Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-02-11
A Few Words for the Judges.
ED. STANDARDS:

clue the w oman suffrage Act, so ailttl,
to be void. Expressions Of regret are
the expressions of feeling, and If the
several writers consider the fact uniur-
tunate it is entirely proper to say So,
but some of them go further and abuse
the Supreme Court, at least the judges
who formed the majority of the court
i'll that case. What have they done
that calls for such treatment? The
several Judges of the Supreme Court
are sworn to adjudicate, decide and
enforce the law as it Is. The laws uf
this Territory consist principally Ill
the Constitution and laws of the Uni
ted States and the acts of our Legisla
ture enacted in accordance Herewith.
The laws Of the United States require
that acts of our Legislature shall "em-
brace but one object and that shall be
expressed in the title" that being the
case any statute Of our Legislature
that does not comply with that re-
quircment is not law, and it is the
duty of the Supreme Court to fearlessly
say SO whenever such statute shall
have been presented to it. The stat
ute in question has for its title Gan
Act to amend Section 1850 of the
Code of Washington" Two of the
Judges, after long deliberation and re-
search, came to the conclusion that
the above title does not express any
"objcct." The Object of the act was to
extend the suffrage to women, while
the means by which that object was to
he accomplished was by amending
Section 1850 of the Code, thus the
means and not the object of the act
was expressed in the title. Having
come to that conclusion the judges
had nothing to do under their oaths
but say that the law was not enacted
in accordance with the laws of the
United States and was, therefore, void |;
whcreupon up rise some of the typo
fraternity and from their exalted watch
towers give the alarm that the fair
name of the Territory has been eds
graced" and outraged" and more of
the same kind. What do they mean?
If the judges have simply decided that
void act was not law, no wrong has
been done, and those who abuse the
judges are guilty of the most con-
temptiblc SANDER, condemning public
officers for doing their sworn duty,
while on the other hand if they wish
to charge the Judges with deciding
what they knew to be the law of the
land was not law, they are charging
them with one of the most heinous
crimes known to the law, for which
they would be liable to be impeachcd
and forever disgraccd by Congress.
Such charges are too serious to be
bantercd around loosely, but SO much
for that.
Upon 4 full consideration, with the
matter fully before it, the Supreme
Court has decided that female suffrage
has never had legal existence here,
and there is no probability of that de-
cision ever being overruled. 1t has
become the settled law of the Terri
tory.
Many of the criticisms noticed
seemed to be based upon sentiment
more than upon law and reason. This
is not right. The court has nothing
to do with sentiment. If our laws
could be interpreted in accordance
with the sentiments of three or four
judges, we would have chaos indeed,
but as Judge Langford said to the
writer, the question was entirely with
out sentiment with him as he had no
objection to female suffrage But in
regard to sentiment, it may not be
amiss to say word upon the merits
of the question here.
1t should be the duty of every man
to protest against the passage of any
female suffrage law hereafter. An act
of that kind is an insult to the manli-
ness of men. 1t is confession on
their part that they are not competent
to weld the strong arm Of govern
ment, and that duties that devolvc
upon them by naturc-the upbuilding
and preservation of civil government
can be as well performed by women as
10y themselves. This is not question
of comparative intellccts; the duties of
womanhood require as keen an intel
lect us the duties of manhood, and |
may say keener in many respects, and
those requirements are as fully met by
women as those of men are by them.
But nature by its constitution of sexes
requires of the male in the human
family to take upon himself certain
duties. He shall perform the first
processes towards providing food and
raiment, not only for himself, but for
those Of the female sex depending
upon him. Thus he shall bring to the
home the results of the chase and the
fruits of the fields. He shall furnish
the wool or skins for clothing, bring
the fuel, etc. The correlative duties of
the other sex will readily suggest
themselves to the reader. But the
greatest and most imperative natural
duty of the man is to defend and pro-
tect the home and those who dwell
therein. 1t is from that duty that
governments sprung, for government
is only an agent of a great number of
individuals who have organized to
jointly protect the lives, liberties and
property of each. This having been
duty of men, a government is directly
the agent of men. To be sure it pro-
tects the lives, liberty and property of
all, women as well as men, but as l
said that being the duty OF men the
government is doing the work of men.
He has reposed in government his
most sacred duty, and for that govern
ment he, and not woman, is response
BILE.
There is distinction in the rules
that apply to lives and liberty on the
one hand and property on the other
Life and liberty are natural rights and
man is bound by nature to protect
them, but in a state of nature, rights
in property do not exist Property is
a fruit of government and is preserved
by it, and, therefore, in return for that
care and protection, it exacts from
that property Il stipend or tax. 1t
makes no difference whether the owner
of the property is citizen or alien,